Alan Dershowitz Schools Van Jones on Constitutionality of Travel Ban

newsbusters.org ^ | 3/16/2017 | Nicholas Fondacaro

[rktman]

Late Wednesday evening, news broke that another liberal judge had put a temporary hold on the implementation of President Donald Trump’s travel ban. And during CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, commentator Van Jones voiced his approval. “An action can be ruled unconstitutional if it's on the face of it, it looks like it's a good thing but there's an intent that's unconstitutional,” he argued, “There's a discriminatory intent here. And the discriminatory intent of the Trump administration is clear.”

According to Jones, the reason the travel ban is discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional, is because during the election Trump announced he wanted a Muslim ban. “Donald Trump has said a gazillion and 50 times, I counted, that he wants a Muslim ban,” Jones joked, drawing laughter from the rest of the panel, both left and right-wingers.

But Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz (who disagrees with Trump on the travel ban) found a major conflict in reasoning if the Supreme Court ruled on Trump’s intent as Jones framed it. “If it does, it will have to decide that words in an order can be constitutional when issue by Barack Obama but the very same words unconstitutional when issued by Donald Trump. That makes it very, very personal,” he explained.

[rktman]

A simple bit of comprehension of the statute that allows the president to restrict entry into this country by ANYBODY shouldn't be too hard. I underestimated the ignorance of these people. Sorry there vanny, the somali's and syrians have NO constitutional rights if they're no in this country. Go organize something will ya. Odd isn't it that assclowns like this putz and billy boy aires/bernadette dorn end up in high falutin' positions.

[kiryandil]

I think the bottom line is this:

You would be unable to write a computer program that is able to make a decision on American "law".

[kiryandil]

#FakeJudges and #FakeCourts

[kiryandil]

#FakeJudges and #FakeCourts

[Mr.Unique]

That makes it very, very personal,” he explained.

And, that's just what Libs want.

[syriacus]

PRESIDENT Trump has the right to choose where to locate the refugees.

Ship them to Hawaii*

The Washington Post article, linked to below, “proves” that states cannot oppose a PRESIDENT’S decision to move refugees to their state.

Short quote from the WaPo article:

“Federal law emphatically does not provide authority for states to nullify the president’s decision”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/19/the-law-is-clear-states-cannot-reject-syrian-refugees/?utm_term=.1f5935437919

http://tinyurl.com/WAPOrefugees

*or ship them to Maryland or Washington State.

[Ray76]

Congress has a duty to remove judges who do not follow the laws and Constitution of the US.

[eyeamok]

At least nobody read the COnstitution beforehand and realized according to Article 3, Section 2, that an inferior Court “ordained and established” by Congress HAS NO AUTHORITY when a “State shall be party”.

[NTHockey]

Third times a charm. New order banning ALL immigration from ANY country until properly vetted. No body gets in, no exceptions.

[marron]

Citizenship is discriminatory. It discriminates against non-citizens.

As it should.

Only citizens have the right to enter or remain in the US. For any and all others, it is a privilege we extend or do not extend as we choose.

[Leep]

+1

[V K Lee]

Why, THAT is a thought. President ‘must’ accept the invaders.... therefore, the poor little ‘innocents’ are then shipped to destinations of HIS choice. As an aside, he must have such a long list of possible destinations (just as many as BO’B).

[Parmy]

When listening to a persons who considers them to be schooled in the law, like those two, makes a sane person confused.

The law is clear. There is no need for argument or the parsing of words and their meaning.

Lawyers make their living by arguing that white is black or black is white. And, that just depends on who is paying. Because a lawyer can be on the white side one time. Then the next time be on the side of the black.

To them it doesn't matter.

[New Jersey Realist]

or ship them to Maryland or Washington State.

---

Problem with that is they can then move to another state unless the law says they have to stay there.

[Logical me]

What rights does our Constitution have with foreigners? None except for immigration laws. Otherwise they have no rights.

[databoss]

#fakenewsidiots

[ridesthemiles]

Hard to keep those ‘refugees’ in any particular spot for very long.

[alexander_busek]

[...] commentator Van Jones voiced his approval. "An action can be ruled unconstitutional if it's on the face of it, it looks like it's a good thing but there's an intent that's unconstitutional," he argued, "There's a discriminatory intent here. And the discriminatory intent of the Trump administration is clear."

So, Van Jones is now telepathic?!

Regards,

[Sergio]

bkmk

[liberalh8ter]

This is where I am right now. Stop ALL immigration until the administration comes up with a comprehensive vetting strategy......and then put “design comprehensive vetting strategy” on the very bottom of his to-do list.